Will the real Pierre Poilievre please stand up?

[TK4]

Those houses don't provide the fat returns a builder wants.

They can if you build enough of them. In the mid 1950s the town of Richmond Hill actively pursued builders to fill up the space from Major Mackenzie to Elgin Mills, from Bayview to almost Yonge St. They dropped in something like a thousand VERY modest homes - barely running water, natural gas and sewage. No storm drains - open ditches. The town's population quadrupled - that meant more property taxes, infrastructure and services. It's not rocket surgery, there just needs to be an incentive.

 

[Evoex]

How do you compel private for-profit businesses to sacrifice profit for "cheap and fast"? Things are a lot different than they were post ww2, so it's an apples and oranges comparison to make today.

The only way you accomplish that today? You have to throw money at them to make up for those lost profits, that's the only way. So is the federal government willing to pay say, $500,000 per house to compensate builders for building $250,000 homes instead of 2500sqft homes that they can sell for $800,000-$1m+ instead?

If they want to legislate homes are cheaper, good luck getting homebuilders to actually build anything. Again, I'm not sure with PP's magic-wand plan is here aside from yelling about it endlessly and making people believe he's got some magic wand solution, when in reality, that doesn't exist.

Again, there's no magic solution to this unless the federal government is willing to get into the homebuilding businesss, and the observant have seen how that pans out in the long term when even the province gets into the homebuilding business.

Why do you keep saying he’s ‘yelling about it endlessly’ I’ve only seen him fired up during QP.

 

[PrivatePilot]

They can if you build enough of them. In the mid 1950s the town of Richmond Hill actively pursued builders to fill up the space from Major Mackenzie to Elgin Mills, from Bayview to almost Yonge St. They dropped in something like a thousand VERY modest homes - barely running water, natural gas and sewage. No storm drains - open ditches. The town's population quadrupled - that meant more property taxes, infrastructure and services. It's not rocket surgery, there just needs to be an incentive.

See my last response. This "incentive' is throwing money at them. Where does that come from?

It's not the 1930's, 40's, or 50's anymore.

 

[TK4]

How do you compel private for-profit businesses to sacrifice profit for "cheap and fast"? Things are a lot different than they were post ww2, so it's an apples and oranges comparison to make today.

How is it different ? Show builders there's money to be made. You can have Walmart housing if you build enough of it.

 

[TK4]

See my last response. This "incentive' is throwing money at them. Where does that come from?

It's not the 1930's, 40's, or 50's anymore.

Same place it always came from - the urge to make a profit.
Think link homes, condos, low rises, small footprint or backyard city homes, co-ops - there are lots of options.

 

[PrivatePilot]

Why do you keep saying he’s ‘yelling about it endlessly’ I’ve only seen him fired up during QP.

Maybe you've missed a lot of it. Here's a link that shows all the news articles from 2021 when he really started to get wound up about it. And it hasn't decreased since.

pierre poilievre housing affordability - Google Search

 

[PrivatePilot]

How is it different ? Show builders there's money to be made. You can have Walmart housing if you build enough of it.

Same place it always came from - the urge to make a profit.

You've missed the point. If you ran a private for profit business and you had the two options below, both with equal demand, which one would you take?

1/ Build 1,000,000 of something at a profit of $1 each
2/ Build 1000 or something at a profit of $1000 each

Both yield you $1,000,000 profit.

One is also a HELL of a lot less work. What's your choice?

 

[Evoex]

Maybe you've missed a lot of it. Here's a link that shows all the news articles from 2021 when he really started to get wound up about it. And it hasn't decreased since.

pierre poilievre housing affordability - Google Search

a quick glance shows all the videos taking place in the commons.

outside of that, has he done interviews or public statements where he's 'constantly yelling about it'?

i'm not really critical, more amused since i thought i was the only person on the planet that actually watches the circus that is QP.

oh, and they all yell in there.

 

[PrivatePilot]

outside of that, has he done interviews or public statements where he's 'constantly yelling about it'?

Add the word "twitter" to that search and broaden it outside of the specific 2021 timeline.

 

[TK4]

You've missed the point. If you ran a private for profit business and you had the two options below, both with equal demand, which one would you take?

1/ Build 1,000,000 of something at a profit of $1 each
2/ Build 1000 or something at a profit of $1000 each

Both yield you $1,000,000 profit.

One is also a HELL of a lot less work. What's your choice?

That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. There is a middle ground which could possibly yield even greater profit if you have your act together.

 

[Evoex]

Add the word "twitter" to that search and broaden it outside of the specific 2021 timeline.

oh jeez, i can't take anyone on that platform seriously.

anyways, back to the show!

 

[nobbie48]

For starters I only believe politicians that bring their own checkbooks to the table with sufficient funds to correct the situation if their hypotheses fail. Null set.

There is no solution to the problem short of a communistic take over of all housing by a central government and housing assigned by some arbitrary formula. If you're lucky, the family you will have to share your house or apartment with won't be too bad.

The real solution was forty years ago and too many missed the boat. They are adrift in the north Atlantic with winter coming on. Forget about them. Practice triage and try to help those coming on stream in the future decades.

We failed ourselves and our children because we perpetuated the belief in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. We failed in basic math. We failed in common sense and we aren't getting better.

Argue all you want about climate change, EV's, public transit, minimum wages, equality, native rights, it all boils down to money.

Want cheap housing here you go...

Park it on a ten dollar lot in Cochrane. Don't like the cold? Build a 100 square mile geodesic dome over the place

 

[PrivatePilot]

That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. There is a middle ground which could possibly yield even greater profit if you have your act together.

Build 500,000 of something at a profit of $2 each then?

Again, when the option exists to build 499,000 less and sell them for a price of $1000 instead, a price at which there is near equal demand and people who will pay that, and which keeps your shareholders happier as that profit is fast and cheap comparatively which helps your stock price, are you still going to take that far more difficult, costlier, time consuming, and far more painful path?

It's not a rediculous argument at all, it's reality. It's capatalism.

Again, unless we're ready to dive into socialism (Which is why it's called "Social Housing" when housing is built under socialism), and let taxpayers foot the bill for cheap houses, no, it's not going to happen.

 

[PrivatePilot]

i can't take anyone on that platform seriously.

Well, Poilvre is particularly busy over there on Xitter, especially as the audience has swung far to the right since 'ol Muskie took it over.

I closed my account there as it's a freakin cesspool, but he's found an audience willing to lap up every word he says there, unsurprsingly.

Park it on a ten dollar lot in Cochrane. Don't like the cold? Build a 100 square mile geodesic dome over the place

A lot of people would do this, and would do it in urban areas, if it was allowed. Which opens up an interesting and actually viable potential path that COULD actually happen - Forcing municipalties to amend property standards and all the other red tape that prevents people from putting things like tiny homes on existing (or new) property could actually work. As it stands right now, even someone living in a rural area who would like to build a tiny bunkhouse home, or put a trailer or two for friends or family to live in, are roadblocked with so many standards that it makes it virtually impossible to do it legally. There is also the flipside of someone in an urban area dumping an old ****** trailer in their driveway and renting it as an apartment (and the NIMBY aspect that surely comes into play), but I do believe there's a happy medium that could be met if there was a discussion around the topic.

 

[TK4]

Build 500,000 of something at a profit of $2 each then?

Again, when the option exists to build 499,000 less and sell them for a price of $1000 instead, a price at which there is near equal demand and people who will pay that, and which keeps your shareholders happier as that profit is fast and cheap comparatively which helps your stock price, are you still going to take that far more difficult, costlier, time consuming, and far more painful path?

It's not a rediculous argument at all, it's reality. It's capatalism.

Again, unless we're ready to dive into socialism (Which is why it's called "Social Housing" when housing is built under socialism), and let taxpayers foot the bill for cheap houses, no, it's not going to happen.

And the creeping specter of socialism rears it's ugly head !
How about you build 250,000 of them and make $10 each ?
Are we talking houses here or yoyos ?

 

[nobbie48]

Well, Poilvre is particularly busy over there on Xitter, especially as the audience has swung far to the right since 'ol Muskie took it over.

I closed my account there as it's a freakin cesspool, but he's found an audience willing to lap up every word he says there, unsurprsingly.



A lot of people would do this, and would do it in urban areas, if it was allowed. Which opens up an interesting and actually viable potential path that COULD actually happen - Forcing municipalties to amend property standards and all the other red tape that prevents people from putting things like tiny homes on existing (or new) property could actually work. As it stands right now, even someone living in a rural area who would like to build a tiny bunkhouse home, or put a trailer or two for friends or family to live in, are roadblocked with so many standards that it makes it virtually impossible to do it legally. There is also the flipside of someone in an urban area dumping an old ****** trailer in their driveway and renting it as an apartment (and the NIMBY aspect that surely comes into play), but I do believe there's a happy medium that could be met if there was a discussion around the topic.

Trailer parks are a pariah to most municipalities. Too many redneck stories.

In reality, a well run trailer park doesn't have to be a blight. All it takes is guts from those in charge to set standards, no unlicensed vehicles, trash, etc. Have them borrow from the condo act. You don't own the land.

The land is owned by the park corporation and they set rules and can enforce them at will.That will last until some self entitled prat breaks the rules and gets the media involved. The poor me crowd joins in and it's death by media. Then media gets to report on the park closing. The closing that wouldn't have happened if the media didn't fan the flames.

The big problem with trailer parks is that there is no cap gain from the property and no incentive to keep the property up. Change the cap gain and we get back into "Get rich by real estate" inflation.

 

[nobbie48]

Well, Poilvre is particularly busy over there on Xitter, especially as the audience has swung far to the right since 'ol Muskie took it over.

I closed my account there as it's a freakin cesspool, but he's found an audience willing to lap up every word he says there, unsurprsingly.



A lot of people would do this, and would do it in urban areas, if it was allowed. Which opens up an interesting and actually viable potential path that COULD actually happen - Forcing municipalties to amend property standards and all the other red tape that prevents people from putting things like tiny homes on existing (or new) property could actually work. As it stands right now, even someone living in a rural area who would like to build a tiny bunkhouse home, or put a trailer or two for friends or family to live in, are roadblocked with so many standards that it makes it virtually impossible to do it legally. There is also the flipside of someone in an urban area dumping an old ****** trailer in their driveway and renting it as an apartment (and the NIMBY aspect that surely comes into play), but I do believe there's a happy medium that could be met if there was a discussion around the topic.

I read somewhere that Texas didn't have zoning. If you want to be sure someone doesn't build an abattoir next door buy into a HOA area or buy an square mile of land. Pick your poison.

Again, it can work but everyone has to stand up for the standards. Be like the NRA in the USA. They don't give an inch on infringement of their (perceived) rights.

 

[nobbie48]

FWIW there was a trailer park in Mississauga, near Dundas and Wharton Way. I don't recall it being a problem and it was largely out of sight in an industrial area. IIRC it's being shut down and converted to a government controlled building. I wonder if future books will show that a loss or gain.

Our History

Twin Pines was originally comprised of apple orchards and owned by the Pallet family. In 1948, during the reconstruction of Dundas Street, Mr. Pallet permitted the construction crews to park their …

twinpinespark.ca

 

[GreyGhost]

FWIW there was a trailer park in Mississauga, near Dundas and Wharton Way. I don't recall it being a problem and it was largely out of sight in an industrial area. IIRC it's being shut down and converted to a government controlled building. I wonder if future books will show that a loss or gain.

Our History

Twin Pines was originally comprised of apple orchards and owned by the Pallet family. In 1948, during the reconstruction of Dundas Street, Mr. Pallet permitted the construction crews to park their …

twinpinespark.ca

That park had an infrastructure and capital problem. To upgrade water and sewer was so expensive per unit that it would never have broken even. It would have been far far cheaper to put them all on holding tanks with frequent pump out. I don't know if that was considered or if property standards made holding tanks impossible.

 

[ToSlow]

That park had an infrastructure and capital problem. To upgrade water and sewer was so expensive per unit that it would never have broken even. It would have been far far cheaper to put them all on holding tanks with frequent pump out. I don't know if that was considered or if property standards made holding tanks impossible.

Was some pretty run down units in the place.